Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Sean Chittenden <seanc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030606235658.X15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030607064449.GW65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030607064449.GW65470@perrin.int.nxad.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Been running NO_BIND=YES for two years on servers and desktops alike
> with zero problems.
Have you actually _removed_ all the stuff that was installed originally?
Minimally, we're talking about deleting /usr/include before installworld,
and cleaning out /usr/lib, and /usr/[s]bin after.
> Now, I haven't checked to see what NO_BIND really does,
Heh... that's encouraging. :)
> > Has anyone actually run a system without any BIND bits installed?
> > Particularly a desktop system, which compiles stuff from ports.
>
> *waves hand* I think we could enlist bento here to validate the theory
> of being able to nuke name server bits and confirm the above position.
Yes of course... we'd have to test that, and a bunch of other stuff before
we could seriously consider this.
> :( You had me going for this until I saw you jump to 6-current.
I've had numerous posts (most of which have already been posted here),
asking not to stir the 5.x pot any more than it already is. I have to
respect that. If we can get a solid minimal configuration in 6-current
then we can consider bringing it back to 5-stable, perhaps by making
NO_BIND the default. I would vigorously oppose any movement to twiddle
RELENG_4.
> Can we first conclude that removing the server bits and leaving the
> client libs/bins would be a good idea?
Like I said, I'm very interested in this idea, and if you can divorce it
from the timing, that's cool, but we've already seen how intense people
get about this issue, so I want to be sure that people know what I'm
thinking.
The other thing I'd really like to do for 6-current is to split the
resolver stuff out of libc. I think that would be the ideal time for such
a radical change, but I'm sure there are probably lots of people more
qualified to comment on this issue than I.
Please keep in mind that for those who really want to adopt the no bind
concept, the make.conf option is already available.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606235658.X15459>